The Plan "B" Phone Call

The following is the transcript of a phone conversation between Renee Martin and Joseph Kerekes. This call took place while Kerekes was being held at the Virginia Beach jail. This is termed transcript #98 by the Luzerne County District Attorneys Office:

RENEE MARTIN: Hypothetically?

JOSEPH KEREKES: Mmm, hmm.

RENEE MARTIN: Okay.

JOSEPH KEREKES: And Harlow already knows this hypothetical too and ah, that was what we called ah, ya know the ah, Plan B, ya know?

RENEE MARTIN: Okay. What I'm saying though Joe is when you get up there to see your attorney, and you talk to Brewer, okay? You need to tell him nothing but the truth because the only way that Brewer can defend you is if he knows the truth because what will happen is, and let me explain this to you, okay cause this is just the way the court system works okay?

JOSEPH KEREKES: Mmm, hmm.

RENEE MARTIN: If you tell Brewer a lie, and Brewer tries to defend you on a lie, okay, he's not gonna be able to do it because he's gonna get caught up in catch 22's and he's not coinciding with the statements, ya know what I'm saying? Just things that were said....

JOSEPH KEREKES: Well let me just say this, hypothetically it was done in such a way that there would be no hypo... ya know proof of anything other than what I just hypothetically put, put forth.

RENEE MARTIN: Okay, but, my problem is, hypothetically who could have been there prior to this young gentlemen showing up there?

JOSEPH KEREKES: Oh, what I just said is completely... the hypothetical but the umm, probable truth.

RENEE MARTIN: Okay, but what I'm saying is, is that...

JOSEPH KEREKES: Oh, you, you, you mean, you mean the ah, unknown 'person that may have hypothetically hurt this person?

RENEE MARTIN: That's correct.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Okay, I wouldn't know about that, because umm, ya know, hypothetically this is all that ya know that I know.

RENEE MARTIN: I know, but that's what I'm saying is, is and what they're, that's what I'm saying, the only thing I'm telling you is when you get up there and Harlow needs to do the same thing, okay?

JOSEPH KEREKES: Mmm, hmm.

RENEE MARTIN: You need to work on a basis with your attorney. I'm not telling you with anybody else, but with your attorney on a basis of, total truth okay? You need to explain to him from get go A to Z exactly what went on, what transpired. . . .

JOSEPH KEREKES: Yea.

RENEE MARTIN: ... what transpired. Do you see what I'm saying?

JOSEPH KEREKES: Well, well why isn't Harlow calling is he with Brice now?

RENEE MARTIN: Yea, yea, he's with Brice now.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Well how do you know that?

RENEE MARTIN: Umm, because I talked to Jim Brice and he said he was going in to see Harlow, he'd call me back.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Okay cool, cool.

RENEE MARTIN: So all I'm saying though is, is that you and Harlow are gonna screw yourself out of an adequate defense but not telling your attorney, not anybody else. . .

JOSEPH KEREKES: By telling him that hypothetical and whatever story I just told you is pretty much the truth, it is the truth.

RENEE MARTIN: Well all I'm saying is, is they're gonna wanna know, I mean, hypothetically was the house on fire when you got there, or when this person got there?

JOSEPH KEREKES: Yes he did see, he smelled, he walked in and then he saw that, yes.

RENEE MARTIN: Okay.

JOSEPH KEREKES: It was very small, is what he, hypothetically.

RENEE MARTIN: Hypothetically when both people, was this when both people drove up or when...

JOSEPH KEREKES: No, no, why do you keep bringing this... he said he heard a sound upstairs hypothetically in this story, and that also umm scared him and he ran out.

RENEE MARTIN: Okay. So person B never actually went all the way into the home?

JOSEPH KEREKES: Person B, you mean who?

RENEE MARTIN: Okay, ah, the, the gentlemen visiting, hypothetically visiting. .

JOSEPH KEREKES: Never, no, no, hypothetically he walked right into where this person was and got scared, he saw the fire, smelled the smoke and heard a loud noise upstairs and ran out.

RENEE MARTIN: Okay, now what I'm saying is, is where was person A, while person B was inside?

JOSEPH KEREKES: Umm, I don't know.

RENEE MARTIN: Hypothetically.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Hypothetically there, there, see Renee this is where we don't understand each other because there isn't one, hypothetically.

RENEE MARTIN: Okay, there is A and B, A and B went to Pennsylvania, hypothetically.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Okay yea A, Oh A, A being the older one?

RENEE MARTIN: Yea.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Yea that person A, A, at the motel umm, ya know watching television.

RENEE MARTIN: Okay, so hypothetically A was at the hotel while this whol'e thing transpired?

JOSEPH KEREKES: Absolutely.

RENEE MARTIN: Okay so hypothetically you don't know that B didn't commit any kind of crime?

JOSEPH KEREKES: That's, that's sorta true, yea, that's true hypothetically I don't know for sure.

RENEE MARTIN: No, no, no, not you.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Hypothetically the, the, the older one does not know for sure.

RENEE MARTIN: Okay. That's, that's all I'm saying and that's what you need to tell your lawyer.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Okay, I see that you're on the same wave length now.

RENEE MARTIN: You, you see what I'm saying you need to explain to your lawyer when you get to PA, exactly what you know.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Okay.

RENEE MARTIN: Okay? I'm not telling you to tell anybody else.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Right.

RENEE MARTIN: Okay? And if anybody else ever asks you, I wouldn't say anything Joe.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Mmm, hmm.

RENEE MARTIN: Okay? What I'm telling you is, when you get there and you talk to your lawyer, okay and I'm not talking about in hypothetical's with your lawyer, with me everything is hypothetical, okay cause you never know who is listening to the phone.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Mmm, hmm.

RENEE MARTIN: Okay?

JOSEPH KEREKES: Mmm, hmm.

RENEE MARTIN: But when you get there, and you talk to your lawyer everything is on the table the way it's supposed to be, so your lawyer can adequately defend you cause...

JOSEPH KEREKES: Good, good.

RENEE MARTIN: ... he has to know what went on and how.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Cause I know that the hypothetical B person, already has thought of this, ah this story as well and already knows umm, in his smart, in his hypothetically planned way umm, umm, ways out, ya know?

RENEE MARTIN: Okay. Hypothetically, hypothetically person B went to this quote unquote person in questions home, okay?

JOSEPH KEREKES: Yes.

RENEE MARTIN: Did person B, show back up with person A as clean as they were when they left?

JOSEPH KEREKES: Person B, the younger one, raced back to person A, and they, they left.

RENEE MARTIN: Okay, but wait a minute, was person B, in the same umm, condition as person B was when person B left person A originally?

JOSEPH KEREKES: Same condition, like what do you mean?

RENEE MARTIN: Ah, dressed condition like clothing-wise.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Oh yes, yes.

RENEE MARTIN: Okay, person A, and person B, okay, where are all their clothing from, where, where, would they have hypothetically have put all of that clothing?

JOSEPH KEREKES: Ah, person A was just wearing the normal clothing of the day, and ya know person B, hypothetically, the younger one, probably felt dirty ah, from the smoke probably that touched him and he felt maybe like they would consider him guilty, hypothetically so, he ah, probably ditched it, burned it, cut it up, probably hypothetically, that's what I would do.

RENEE MARTIN: Okay, okay but you don't... but person A doesn't know that to be true to fact?

JOSEPH KEREKES: Well yea, person A saw, ya know saw his, saw this person in complete disarray at what he had witnessed and he saw him, dis... dispose of it.

RENEE MARTIN: Okay, but what I'm saying was, besides disarray, and smoke inhalation to person B, okay was there anything else?

JOSEPH KEREKES: Umm, I just said that probably, hypothetically that, that person A, since he was in the same vehicle would probably have seen ah, because he was driving...

(Telephone Recording: You have one more minute for this call).

JOSEPH KEREKES: ... would probably have seen person B, ya know get rid of it.

RENEE MARTIN: No, no, no, not talking about that, I'm talking about the condition of clothing, okay? Whether it had dog shit on it, whether it had ice cream on it, whether it had something else on it.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Oh, a person, person, person A was ah, was ah, busy when person B walked back in, sort of sleeping, so he doesnt know for sure.

RENEE MARTIN: Okay.

JOSEPH KEREKES: He had fallen asleep hypothetically, and the other person was in the shower when he woke up.

RENEE MARTIN: Okay, and did hypothetically person B, ever see person A's clothes before they were disposed of?

JOSEPH KEREKES: No.

RENEE MARTIN: Okay, I, I again I don't know how to impress upon you Joe, because and I'm telling you right now, that I need for you to call. . .

JOSEPH KEREKES: Do you want me to call back?

RENEE MARTIN: Yes, I need for you to call me back.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Alright bye.

RENEE MARTIN: Alright bye.

The Plan "B" 3-Way

The following is the transcript of a phone conversation between Renee Martin, Joseph Kerekes and Harlow Cuadra. This call took place while Cuadra and Kerekes were being held at the Virginia Beach jail, shortly after the The Plan "B" Phone Call between Renee and Joe. This is termed transcript #101 by the Luzerne County District Attorneys Office:

RENEE MARTIN: Okay, if he doesn't call this time when you're on the phone, what time do they shut your phones off at?

HARLOW CUADRA: Oh I mean, they're always started, but umm, they just let me out of ah, the lock down but ah, from what I, from what I understand he always has access to his phone.

RENEE MARTIN: No, no, no, no, what time do they shut your, down?

HARLOW CUADRA: At ah, at ten I think.

RENEE MARTIN: Okay, if he doesn't call this time we're on the phone, it's seven thirty your time, I need you to call me back at nine o'clock and I'm gonna tell him the same thing, if he calls back to call at nine o'clock so I can hook you guys together okay?

HARLOW CUADRA: Okay, will do. Alright, so I guess you're gonna order this movie and, and ah, painstakingly watch it?

RENEE MARTIN: Yea, I guess if I have to. I don't know that I'll much enjoy it.

HARLOW CUADRA: I don't, I don't think you will, I heard it sucks.

RENEE MARTIN: Well you know your boy ain't workin either?

HARLOW CUADRA: My who?

RENEE MARTIN: Brent Corrigan.

HARLOW CUADRA: He's not workin?

RENEE MARTIN: Mmm, mmm.

HARLOW CUADRA: Why not?

RENEE MARTIN: Nobody wants him.

HARLOW CUADRA: That's bullshit.

RENEE MARTIN: Uh, uh, it's not.

HARLOW CUADRA: Really?

RENEE MARTIN: Yeah and guess what was all over Damion's page today?

HARLOW CUADRA: What?

RENEE MARTIN: You're gonna love this, I could really start some shit with him.

HARLOW CUADRA: Okay, what was on that page?

RENEE MARTIN: Mmm, Cruiser at night, hold on a second, you'll love this, I got him goin yesterday when I was talking to him. Umm, okay, it says umm, Kocis, Kerekes, Cuadra Pennsylvania case update, umm, Sam Snyder(sic) deputy warden of Luzerne County Correctional Facility, said Harlow Cuadra and Joe Kerekes will be kept away from the general inmate population when they arrive in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, since it/s a high profile investigation, we'll probably place them in administrative custody, of course we will isolate them from one another, Hyder(sic) said, Hyder(sic) said the two men/s lifestyle and their sexuality will create a danger for them regarding other inmates, bail is not permitted on a charge of criminal homicide in Pennsylvania...

HARLOW CUADRA: Bail is, bail is not permitted?

RENEE MARTIN: Yea, that's what it says.

HARLOW CUADRA: Okay.

RENEE MARTIN: Legal view, Harlow and Joe can fight this on four points, they are, are they corrupt individuals, are they actually fugitives, are these valid charges in Pennsylvania, is the paperwork sufficient and correctly drawn up. Note, their guilt or innocence in Kocis' death does not enter into the Virginia Beach legal process, they are being held there for Pennsylvania authorities, the upcoming forfeiture hearing in Virginia Beach concerns their property on Bird Neck Road and a bank account in Virginia Beach. Note two, the Pennsylvania State Police PSP conducted the investigation with the assistance of the Virginia Beach Police Department Special Investigations Unit, this case remains under investigation by the PSP with Corporal Leo Hannon as the lead investigator. Hold on, that's Joe...

RENEE MARTIN: Okay, are we all present?

HARLOW CUADRA: Yep, all here.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Harlow...

RENEE MARTIN: Wait a minute, listen here's the rest of it, umm...

JOSEPH KEREKES: Can I interject real quick...

RENEE MARTIN: No, I'm reading something to Harlow off of what Cruiser put on his(inaudible) his site today. . . extremely troubling part of governor's extradition warrant bears close scrutiny and raises major concerns about the safety of Harlow and Joe, a fact no other writer has noticed, on June 20th a forfeiture hearing in Virginia Beach. on June 27th the extradition, no one else has noted what I believe is a very troubling aspect of the PA governor's warrant that concerns me greatly. There are four police officer detectives specifically named in the warrant as the designated officers to pick up Harlow and Joe from Virginia Beach to go to Wilkes-Barre, PA this is most unusual and atypical, I have good reason to believe that these officers may well have a strong personal bias against the defendants and are likely to homophobic as well. The time frame that I have established for the journey probable, journey's probably duration is about twelve to fourteen hours, this means that if Harlow and Joe are not in touch with their attorneys, families and friends, within that time, then . there is a strong basis for a very major concern about their safety and security, I urge all who are concerned with their safety and security and due process rights of Harlow and Joe to make their concerns known to the office of the Pennsylvania Governor and to urge him to reassign the detectives involved and bring an officer who, who are certifiably neutral and impartial in the discharge of the their extradition duties, and it goes on to give you the governor's address and all this other shit, and then you go to his update, that was on there this morning, you go to his update and that's what I was reading you earlier Harlow, was that umm, umm, the Pennsylvania State Police blah, blah, blah, an investigation, (inaudible) investigation with the assistance of the VBPD Special Investigations Unit this case remains under investigation by the PSP with Corporal Leo Hannon as the lead investigation, Cruiser at night is seeking an interview with Corporal Hannon, if you go up, it will tell you umm, Sam Snyder, Deputy Warden of the Luzerne County Correctional Facility said that Harlow and Joe will be kept away from the general inmate population when they arrive in Wilkes-Barre Pennsylvania since it's a high profile investigation, we'll probably place them in administrative custody, of course we would isolate them from one another, Hyder said the two men's lifestyles, and their sexuality will create a danger for them regarding other inmates, bail is not permitted on a charge of criminal homicide in Pennsylvania. Harlow and Joe can fight this on four points, blah, blah, blah, and I already read the rest of it to you Harlow.

HARLOW CUADRA: Yea, yea.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Ah Harlow?

HARLOW CUADRA: Yep.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Listen we have to go to Plan B, we went there.

HARLOW CUADRA: Alright, alright hey Joe, don't, don't say anything over the phone, I already need to... I already know.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Okay, but I gave her a hypothetical thing about A you, B me...

HARLOW CUADRA: Yea, she already went through...

RENEE MARTIN: I, I , I, I, I, I... all conversations are hypothetical please.

JOSEPH KEREKES: I know, it's all hypothetical but Harlow I need to explain to you this hypothetical conversation real quick, okay?

RENEE MARTIN: Ah, no we, we can't do that guys.

JOSEPH KEREKES: What, we already did that, you and me right, Renee?

RENEE MARTIN: I know but we can't do that, because if they're listening in on this conversation and I have three-way'd you, and you guys tell each other what you're supposed to tell each other, then y'all are gonna get me in trouble.

HARLOW CUADRA: I know.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Alright, Renee did you relay anything to him though?

RENEE MARTIN: I was doing that when you called, okay?

JOSEPH KEREKES: Harlow, it's pretty, it's pretty much what we already know, remember what Plan B was, right?

HARLOW CUADRA: Yea, yea.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Okay, and umm...

HARLOW CUADRA: Oh boy.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Because we can't get any... we have to tell, ya know what I mean?

HARLOW CUADRA: Yea, yea.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Are you okay with that?

HARLOW CUADRA: Yea, I'm good, I'm good.

RENEE MARTIN: Guys, it's all gonna be good, it may, it may disrupt your lives for a momentary (inaudible) time...

JOSEPH KEREKES: Are you serious Renee? You really think that we're gonna umm, we're gonna get out?

RENEE MARTIN: Yea, I, I believe eventually down the road, as long as everything ya know, as long as everything comes out, believe me you wouldn't believe how much shit Sheryl has.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Really?

RENEE MARTIN: Yea.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Well then I'm... ya hear this Harlow?

HARLOW CUADRA: Yea, yea.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Well listen, listen can I quickly like, can you walk to your baby and let me talk to him?

HARLOW CUADRA: No, no, don't, don't do that.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Do you remember though what is was, you, you had an appointment, I mean (inaudible).

HARLOW CUADRA: I know, I know, I know...

JOSEPH KEREKES: Egh, Egh, Egh, Egh.

HARLOW CUADRA: I, I, I know, I know Joe.

JOSEPH KEREKES: And I wasn't there.

HARLOW CUADRA: Everything, everything's in my head, just be very calm alright?

RENEE MARTIN: Joseph! Joseph! Joseph! Joseph! You're pressuring the poor boy.

HARLOW CUADRA: Yea.

RENEE MARTIN: You're pressuring him, you're stressing him out, and it's ruining a conversation.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Well I'm completely stressed out too, but I'm glad that you raised the stress level on me Renee, I'm glad that you took us out...

RENEE MARTIN: Well the, the only reason why I raised level on you was because of what I got from Wayne today, okay?

HARLOW CUADRA: Has he been able to get anything else?

RENEE MARTIN: Do what honey?

HARLOW CUADRA: Has he been able to get anything else?

RENEE MARTIN: No, he won't meet with him again until Monday or Tuesday, but like I said, every time he meets with him I get the low down of what the conversation was.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Oh, about the state right?

RENEE MARTIN: Yea.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Umm, so we may get, we may get the house back Harlow.

HARLOW CUADRA: Yea, I've been hearing that too.

JOSEPH KEREKES: And Renee will put that guy on that loan thing real quick, right Renee?

RENEE MARTIN: Yep.

JOSEPH KEREKES: And ah, but the thing is they wanna keep our money and, and, and the things and I don't like that if they don't have any criminal charges against us.

RENEE MARTIN: Do you want me to tell you something?

JOSEPH KEREKES: What?

RENEE MARTIN: Okay, if you can get a hundred and some thousand dollars out of your house, the hell with twenty-seven thousand dollars and a bunch of material assets, y'all can recreate those material assests.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Yea, that's true but why would they keep it, just to be a honcho almighty?

HARLOW CUADRA: Well ah Joe, umm they may keep, I mean we may get it all back, ya know? But even in, even in the worse case scenario, it looks like we'll be getting our house back, ya know what I mean?

JOSEPH KEREKES: Did Brice give you the letter?

HARLOW CUADRA: Yea, yea and I signed it.

JOSEPH KEREKES: No, no, no, no, the one I wrote you?

HARLOW CUADRA: Ah no, no.

RENEE MARTIN: Okay, Sheryl says the guy that was looking to buy your business was a fake, and he is a cop.

HARLOW CUADRA: Really?

RENEE MARTIN: Ah huh.

JOSEPH KEREKES: He's a cop?

RENEE MARTIN: Ah huh.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Where?

RENEE MARTIN: I don't know.

JOSEPH KEREKES: And he wanted to buy it to make it go away, didn't he?

RENEE MARTIN: Well he didn't want to buy it, I don't think he wanted to buy it in the first place. That's why I told ya. . .she said she couldn't find the website but, but, well this is the other guys website that offered to help me buy your updates and that stuff. I know you said you don't much care. for him, but let me tell you something Joe, he's been helping me out immensely, so...

JOSEPH KEREKES: Oh, Oh, ask Harlow if he trusts the ABC Boy guy.

HARLOW CUADRA: Oh yea, he sent me a letter, by the way.

(Telephone Recording: You have one more minute for this call).

RENEE MARTIN: Scott Burnett?

HARLOW CUADRA: Yea, yea, yea.

RENEE MARTIN: Yea.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Hey Harlow, can you call back?

HARLOW CUADRA: Yeah, I'll call right back.

JOSEPH KEREKES: Okay. Hey Renee?

RENEE MARTIN: Yeah, honey...

The #97 Phone Call Surprise?

The following is the transcript of a phone conversation between Renee Martin and Joseph Kerekes. This call took place while Kerekes was being held at the Virginia Beach jail. This is termed transcript #97 by the Luzerne County District Attorneys Office:

Joeseph Kerekes: Hey, Renee?

Renee Martin: Hello.

Joseph Kerekes: Yea.

Renee Martin: Okay.

Joseph Kerekes: Ohh, umm yea without... I, really can't say on the phone, but what you, what that guy.... I know I'm... that wasn't correct.

Renee Martin: Okay, all I'm saying Joe is, is whatever the truth is, if the truth is the truth, then your lawyer is going to be able to prove, okay, hypothetically, and I'm saying this on my part, if you were in PA, there's got to be some trail of you being there, okay? Mind you, you have a guy at a hotel saying that you checked in there with your driver's license, okay? Did you go to get anything to eat? Did you go anyplace else? Is there anybody else who saw you? Did Harlow have appointments while you were there? Did you have appointments while you were there? There has got to be a trial, okay?

Joseph Kerekes: Well, he didn't make a copy of the driver's license.

Renee Martin: Oh, okay, whether he did or he didn't, I am just saying, okay, now like I was telling you earlier, they have three scenarios, okay? Either you and Harlow were there with Brent Corrigan Brent Corrigan was there with Harlow and Roy Grant or Roy Grant and ah, Brent Corrigan were there with you, so they're basically saying that there were three people...

Joseph Kerekes: They, they know for a fact that they were in San Diego because he was on the phone with him that's what Brent told us.

Renee Martin: That what?

Joseph Kerekes: They were on the phone from San Diego with him, like while this was, while that, that was happening.

Renee Martin: While the murder was happening?

Joseph Kerekes: Yes. They know that Grant and Brent, Brent weren't there.

Renee Martin: They were on the phone with him while the murdering was happening?

Joseph Kerkes: Yes, that's all knowledge, everyone knows, we talked about that in San Diego, Brent and Grant, I mean and since then, everybody knows that, that's what the case was.

Renee Martin: Okay, well I'm just telling you basically what Sheryl has come up with, for information.

Joseph Kerekes: Mmm, hmm.

Renee Martin: And well....

Joseph Kerekes: Oh, I know why they think there's a third person there, because on the beach ya know Harlow said something about, ah and ya know just, just making conversation, making it exciting, he said, then my guy ah, ya know my guy ah, took care of something, I think that's what the affidavit says, that's why they think that there's a third person, or, or anymore than who ever was there, ya know?

Renee Martin: Okay, all I'm telling you is, I'm gonna tell Harlow the same thing, okay? What ever it may be, you need to tell your lawyers the truth cause your lawyer cannot appropriately defend you if your lawyer does not know the truth.

Joseph Kerekes: Well, let me tell you, there weren't. What are you talking about? I, I'll tell you the straight up truth, how much can I say here?

Renee Martin: Well no, listen to me, no I don't want you, I don't want you to say anything, I just want you to....

Joseph Kerekes: Well what you just said is completely false, completely one hundred percent.

Renee Martin: Okay, they're saying that they're were three people in this man's house when this incident happened.

Joseph Kerekes: Absolutely, one hundred percent not.

Renee Martin: Okay. What I'm telling you is, I don't wanna hear nothing about that, I'm telling you what I'm being told don't deny or confirm.

Joseph Kerekes: Okay.

Renee Martin: That there were three people there.

Joseph Kerekes: Who's Wyane by the way?

Renee Martin: Wayne is the bondsman.

Joseph Kerekes: Okay.

Renee Martin: Okay? He's trying to help you guys out as much as he can.

Joseph Kerekes: Well, well what you guys just said is completely false.

Renee: Okay, listen to what I'm telling you, they think, this is the way the story goes, either Brent Corrigan and Roy what ever his name is, Grant Roy and you were there, and this incident all happened with the three of you there, or it was Harlow and them...

Joseph Kerekes: They know that they were in San Diego.

(Telephone Recording: You have fifteen seconds left).

Joseph Kerekes: You want me to call right back?

Renee Martin: Yes.

This conversation then goes on to #98, which was previously posted.

Judge Grants Witness Bail in Kocis Murder Case

As I mentioned yesterday, the Citizens' Voice has also picked up the story today, and offers a little more information:

Luzerne County Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. on Tuesday granted a prosecution request to establish bail for a Texas woman they plan to use as a material witness in their capital murder case against Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes.

Renee Marie Martin of Fort Worth, Texas, is a business associate of Cuadra and Kerekes and maintained contact with both defendants after their arrest for the killing of Bryan Kocis in Dallas Township in January 2007, prosecutors said.

Martin established and participated in three-way telephone conversations with Cuadra and Kerekes and heard “incriminating statements” they made during those calls, prosecutors said.

Cuadra, 26, and Kerekes, 34, both of Virginia Beach, Va., are scheduled to go on trial before Olszewski on Sept. 2.

The prosecutors, Luzerne County District Attorney Jackie Musto Carroll, deputy district attorney Tim Doherty, and assistant district attorneys Michael Melnick and Shannon Crake, said they asked for bail for Martin because she lives out of state and “represents a flight risk.”

Olszewski established a $50,000 unsecured bail for Martin and ordered her to maintain weekly contact with state police.

---

Update 9:05 PM: A source familiar with Renee's recent visit to Pennsylvania, tells me that she was quite cooperative with the District Attorney's office ("basically sang like a bird") for the 2 days she was there, and that she is considered to be a very vital witness for the prosecution in this case:

"Renee Marie Martin's testimony is material for the following reasons: (1) she will provide substantial and important information about the defendants and their actions, and (2) she was privy to the conversations between the defendants."

"Renee Marie Martin's testimony is material to help establish certain elements of the criminal charges currently pending against the Defendants"

... more to come...

Update 06/05/08: The Timesleader covers the story today as well, much of it the same information as the Citizens' Voice, but there are a few additional details:

A Texas woman who prosecutors say has been running the business of homicide suspects Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes while the two are incarcerated could be a witness in the men’s trial.

Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. granted a request Tuesday to establish bail for Renee Marie Martin, of Fort Worth.

The bail is to ensure Martin cooperates with investigators and testifies; she is not charged with any crimes.

Prosecutors say Martin arranged for both Cuadra and Kerekes to talk to one another via three-way conference calls and participated in conversations.

Luzerne County District Attorney Jacqueline Musto Carroll and Assistant District Attorneys Tim Doherty, Shannon Crake and Michael Melnick say Cuadra and Kerekes made incriminating statements during the conversations, which Martin heard.

Martin’s husband contacted the Pennsylvania State Police in Wyoming earlier this year and agreed to be interviewed by telephone. Meanwhile, inmates at the Virginia Beach Correctional Facility told investigators Martin runs the two defendants’ business out of her Forth Worth home while they are in jail awaiting trial.

Kerekes and Cuadra were previously held in the Virginia Beach lockup before they were brought to Northeastern Pennsylvania.

Prosecutors requested bail for Martin because they believe she could be a flight risk, and they have been unsuccessful in the past in attempts to meet with her.

Prosecutors said Martin’s testimony is needed because she has been and still is the manager for Kerekes and Cuadra’s business; she can provide substantial and important information about the defendants and their actions, and she was privy to the conversations between the two defendants.

Prosecutors requested bail to guarantee Martin’s appearance at all court proceedings. Martin’s unsecured bail was set at $50,000.

Martin must maintain weekly contact with a state police trooper; provide prosecutors with all appropriate telephone numbers; maintain a permanent address, and appear to testify in all court appearances.

Harlow Cuadra's Trial... Day 7

6:14 PM: Sources tell me that Grant Roy was in the courtroom today listening to testimony, but was told to leave/pulled out by a detective between 3:30 and 4 this afternoon.

4:34 PM: The Citizens' Voice reports that Harlow Cuadra needed an alibi for the day Bryan Kocis was killed, a friend of Cuadra testified today in Cuadra’s capital homicide trial.

Howard Halford testified Cuadra told him “a bad alibi is better than no alibi.”

Halford met Cuadra through the male escort service Cuadra co-owned with Joseph Kerekes in Virginia Beach, Va.. Cuadra, 27, is accused of killing Kocis, a rival pornography producer, at his Dallas Township home on Jan. 24, 2007, in order to lure an actor to the gay pornography business he also co-owned with Kerekes, 35.

Halford, who said he was in love with Cuadra, testified he gave the 27-year-old more than $70,000 for legal defense since he was imprisoned. Although Cuadra asked him several times for help with an alibi, Halford said he never lied to police.

“You were not with him on January 24?” Assistant District Attorney Michael Melnick asked.

“No,” Halford said.

Halford was not the only former client of Cuadra who testified he donated money to Cuadra’s legal defense or was asked to come up with an alibi. Nep Maliki, of Virginia Beach, said Cuadra sent him letters asking Maliki to remember facts about an alibi that was made up. Maliki, who works two fast food restaurant jobs, told jurors he donated $50 to Cuadra’s legal defense fund.

Thirteen witnesses testified in the seventh day of testimony. About half of the witnesses verified electronic records about various things from Cuadra’s My Space Web page or phone records.

Renee Martin, a neighbor of Harlow Cuadra testified today she talked to Kerekes hundreds or thousands of times, while the two men were jailed in Virginia Beach related to Kocis’ Dallas Township homicide. The two men were held there for several weeks after their arrest. Martin said she received several letters from Cuadra about the case, but that Kerekes was the primary contact.

Prosecution will resume its case at 8:30 a.m. tomorrow.

3:37 PM: Looks like Joseph Kerekes will be testifying afterall, this was just filed this morning: Petition for Writ of habeas Corpus Ad testificandum & Writ filed. Transport Kerekes to Lackawanna Co.

3:04 PM: According to the Times Leader, a man from Georgia testified he gave $70,000 to homicide suspect Harlow Cuadra.

Howard Mitch Halford, of Atlanta, told the jury that he is in "love" with Cuadra, 27, and gave him the keys to his residence as an option when Cuadra was a suspect in the death of Bryan Kocis in January 2007.

Cuadra and his business partner, Joseph Kerekes, in Norfolk Male Companions and the production of gay pornographic movies, were arrested in May 2007 in Kocis' killing.

Halford was a long standing escort client of Cuadra.

Halford testified on the seventh day of Cuadra's capital murder trial before Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. that Cuadra solicited him to tell investigators that he was with Cuadra the night Kocis was killed on Jan. 24, 2007.

Halford initially told investigators that he was with Cuadra, but later recanted, saying he saw Cuadra once during a two-week span in late January.

Halford said he gave Cuadra $70,000 for his love for him. He also knew Cuadra's business partner, Joseph Kerekes.

Halford described the relationship with Cuadra and Kerekes as "a little puppy."

"Kerekes had such control over Harlow, how would I describe it, it was like a little puppy," Halford said.

A letter Cuadra wrote to another escort client, Nep Maliki, was shown to the jury.

In the letter dated June 13, 2007, Cuadra instructed Maliki on what to say to investigators.

Maliki, of Virginia Beach, testified that he kept the letter in his pocket for six months. Malicki further said he gave Cuadra $50 to his legal defense, donating the money on a Web site called freeharlow.com.

Another escort client, Joseph Ryan, testified earlier today that he gave Cuadra more than $7,000 for his legal defense.

12:03 PM: The Times Leader is reporting that Renee Martin testified that there were hundreds, if not, thousands of jailhouse phone calls from homicide suspects Joseph Kerekes and Harlow Cuadra.

Martin, who formerly lived near Kerekes and Cuadra in Virginia Beach, Va., said she arranged the phone calls by paying a special inmate phone account.

She was the prosecution's 46th witness to testify in Cuadra's capital murder trial before Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. Cuadra's trial is in its seventh day of testimony. Cuadra is charged in the killing of Bryan Kocis, 44, at Kocis' Dallas Township home on Jan. 24, 2007.

Martin said Kerekes made the majority of the phone calls and Cuadra called two or three times a week.

Prosecutors played to the jury two recorded phone calls that were placed when Cuadra and Kerekes were jailed at the Virginia Beach Correctional Facility from May 15 to July 16, 2007.

During the recorded phone calls, Kerekes and Cuadra discussed alibi plans, with Cuadra telling Kerekes, "Don't make my hole too deep to crawl out of." Kerekes was heard saying, "I think the detectives are hard up on evidence."

"I know (investigators) don't believe that I opened the door and saw the body, I know they don't believe that," Cuadra said during one of the recorded phone calls.

Prosecutors alleged the two men made up an alibi they called Plan B, in which, Kerekes remained at a motel in Plains Township and Cuadra traveled to Kocis' home on Midland Drive, and seeing Kocis' body on a couch and the residence on fire.

Martin further testified that she received several letters from Cuadra and Kerekes; however, prosecutors presented to the jury three Cuadra letters and one letter written by Kerekes.

In a six page letter Cuadra drafted to Martin on Oct. 12, 2007, Cuadra wrote "The Plan" which included obtaining attorneys who could tell a good story.

Martin, whom Melnick advised Olszewski would be on the witness stand for a length of time, testified for about 30 minutes.

Victor Maciel, a representative from myspace.com Inc., testified the myspace.com account registered under Cuadra's name was activated several times on Jan. 24, 2007.

10:47 AM: According to the Citizens' Voice... three prosecution witnesses testified this morning in Harlow Cuadra’s capital homicide trial, and jurors are expected to listen to recorded phone conversations Cuadra had from a Virginia jail when they return from the morning recess.

Renee Martin, who had several conversations by phone with Cuadra while he was in jail, is expected to testify next. Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. told jurors before the break that Martin’s testimony would be long.

A previous witness testified today that incoming calls to Harlow were recorded when he was housed at the Virginia Beach, Va., jail. The two other witnesses this morning, a client and a former escort, testified about the escort and gay pornography business Cuadra ran with his partner Joseph Kerekes.

10:43 AM: The Times Leader reports that an escort customer to Harlow Cuadra's male escort business testified that he donated more than $7,000 to Cuadra's defense fund.

John Ryan, a computer consultant in Virginia, testified he has known Cuadra since 2003 when he became a client for Cuadra's escort company Norfolk Male Companions.

After Cuadra was charged with the killing of Bryan Kocis in Kocis' Dallas Township home in January 2007, Ryan said Cuadra sought money for his legal defense on criminal homicide charges.

Ryan was called to testify by prosecutors on the seventh day of Cuadra's capital murder trial before Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. He explained to the jury he visited Cuadra in jail, and it was explained to him what happened the night Kocis was killed on Jan. 24, 2007.

"He said he arrived at Mr. Kocis' residence and saw the door open and Kocis' body on a couch. He said he heard a noise, he fled and called Joe (Kerekes)."

Kerekes, Cuadra's partner in the escort business and the production of gay pornographic films, maintained that he stayed at the Fox Ridge Inn in Plains Township when Cuadra visited Kocis.

Upon questioning by Cuadra's attorneys, Joseph D'Andrea and Paul Walker,Ryan told the jury that Kerekes was the more dominate person in the relationship, and learned Kerekes had assaulted Cuadra.

Prosecutors are expected to play to the jury today several jailhouse phone calls between Cuadra and Kerekes that were arranged by Renee Martin, a former neighbor in Virginia Beach.

8:22 AM: Harlow Cuadra's seventh day of trial is scheduled to begin shortly. Renee Martin is expected to take the witness stand today, and prosecutors will play several recorded jailhouse conversations she had with Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes. Stay tuned for further updates throughout the day.

Brief Update...

1. Judge PPO has granted a prosecution request that Harlow Cuadra pay restitution for funeral expenses related to the death of Bryan Kocis... I'm fairly certain it'll be equal to the $2766.08 that Joe has already been ordered to pay.

2. 14 orders have been unsealed for Joseph Kerekes... but as of this post, none of the sealed orders filed by the DA's office have been unsealed... so it looks like we'll have to wait.

... more later.

Update @ 6:22 PM: Sources now tell me that PPO ordered that Cuadra pay $3,016.08 in restitution to Kocis' estate for funeral and estate expenses. The order also says that Joseph D'Andrea [Harlow's attorney] was in agreement with this figure.

Update @ 7:13 PM: I'm told that some of Joesph Kerekes' unsealed documents revealed that there was also some mention of him writing unsolicited letters to Demitrius Fannick. Fannick wanted that to stop.... he was not council of record...and Joe said that all Fannick ever wanted was money. PPO cautioned everyone, and spelled it out loud and clear for Joseph Kerekes that he needed to stop all the BS.

Update @ 9:50 PM: There was also a transcript of proceedings that were held behind closed doors with Joseph Kerekes and his attorneys Bufalino, Centini , etc... the hearing was because Bufalino wanted to make PPO aware that Joseph Kerekes was not following their advice, and is becoming his own worst enemy by communicating with both Renee Martin and Harlow Cuadra. His defense was that he needs to communicate with Renee Martin because she is his support financially, and his parents couldn't support him that way.

Update @ 03/25/2009: The Times Leader is reporting that Joseph Kerekes did a lot of talking and writing, so much that his lawyers raised concerns about it to a Luzerne County judge behind closed doors.

A transcript of the closed-door court hearing held Feb. 20, 2008, was one of several sealed court records in the Bryan Kocis’ homicide case that were opened to the public late Monday afternoon.

Attorneys Mark Bufalino, John Pike and Shelley Centini requested a closed hearing with Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. in February 2008 to express concerns their client, Kerekes, was writing letters to Renee Martin, of Texas, and attorney Demetrius Fannick about defense strategy. At the time, Kerekes and Cuadra were facing the homicide charges.

The judge, the three attorneys, Kerekes, Olszewski’s law clerk, a court reporter and several sheriff deputies were the only people in the courtroom that was closed to the public and prosecutors.

According to the transcript of the hearing, Kerekes’ attorneys said they were in an awkward position and felt useless in defending Kerekes because they felt he was releasing confidential information. Pike told the judge that Kerekes had ignored their advice to keep quiet.

“There has been multiple third-party communications by our client with people involved and not involved with this case despite our significant warnings,” Pike said. “It has come to our attention that some of this information may have come into the hands of the District Attorney’s Office. …”

Authorities obtained the letters Kerekes had written to Martin, who formerly resided near Kerekes and Cuadra in Virginia Beach, Va. Kerekes also wrote a letter to Fannick, who, in turn, gave it to Pike.

“Attorney Fannick forwarded me a letter that he got from our client with the request that I inform our client not to communicate with him anymore, that (Fannick) is not his counsel,” Pike told Olszewski.

Fannick had met with Kerekes at least eight times at the Luzerne County prison, prior to Fannick’s brief representation of Cuadra. Fannick was eventually disqualified in March 2008 from representing Cuadra.

Olszewski warned Kerekes that releasing information protected by the attorney-client privilege would jeopardize his defense. Kerekes responded, according to the transcript, that he understood Olszewski’s warnings.

Cuadra Spoke with Two Men on Night Kocis was Killed

The Citizens' Voice is reporting that as accused killer Joseph Kerekes attempted to debunk a theory last year that at least three people participated directly in the killing of Bryan Kocis, he confessed that co-defendant Harlow Cuadra had spoken by telephone the night of the murder with two men who settled a lawsuit with Kocis a week earlier.

Since their arrests in May 2007, Cuadra, 26, and Kerekes, 34, both of Virginia Beach, Va., have conducted more than 8,000 separate telephone conversations with Renee Martin, an acquaintance and former neighbor who has been described by prosecutors as their business associate.

In one conversation, recorded by investigators while Cuadra and Kerekes were being held at the Virginia Beach Correctional Facility, Martin asked Kerekes about the prosecution theory that another person was at Kocis’ Dallas Township home when he was killed in January 2007.

In the telephone conversation, Martin alluded to the possibility Grant Roy, a former suspect in the killing who testified at an evidence suppression hearing Thursday, and his business partner and former lover, Sean Lockhart, had been at Kocis’ home.

Lockhart had acted in gay pornographic films produced by Kocis’ company, Cobra Video. He and Roy had been engaged in a patent lawsuit over the use of his stage name, Brent Corrigan. A settlement reached on Jan. 18, 2007 allowed Lockhart to star in movies not involving Cobra Video, in exchange for a payment of 20 percent of the proceeds to Cobra.

“They have three scenarios, OK?” Martin said to Kerekes, according to a transcript of the conversation obtained by The Citizens’ Voice. The transcript has not been released publicly by prosecutors, but versions of it have been posted on an independent Web site dedicated to covering the case.

“Either you and Harlow were there with Brent Corrigan; Brent Corrigan was there with Harlow and Grant Roy; or Grant Roy and Brent Corrigan were there with you,” Martin said.

Kerekes, who has discussed several alibis with Martin in other conversations, including a theory that he was out of the state at the time of the killing and that he was staying at a motel in Plains Township when Cuadra happened upon the crime scene, said Roy and Lockhart were not directly involved, but had spoken to Cuadra by telephone.

“They were on the phone from San Diego with (Kocis), like while this was, while that was happening,” Kerekes told Martin.

“While the murder was happening?” Martin said.

“Yes,” Kerekes said. “(Investigators) know that Grant and Brent weren’t there.”

“They were on the phone with him while the murdering was happening?”

“Yes, that’s all knowledge, everyone knows,” Kerekes said.

Cuadra and Kerekes were the only suspects charged in Kocis’ death. They are accused of slashing Kocis’ neck to the point of near decapitation, stabbing his torso nearly 30 times and later setting fire to his Midland Drive, Dallas Township, home. They face the death penalty and are scheduled to stand trial together, beginning Sept. 2.

Early in the investigation, state and federal authorities checked airline and bus manifests, car and hotel reservations and other records in an effort to determine whether Roy and Lockhart were in Pennsylvania on Jan. 24, 2007, the day Kocis was killed.

Roy later worked as an informant for investigators and wore a recording device that captured incriminating comments Cuadra and Kerekes made during a visit to San Diego in April 2007.

During the suppression hearing Thursday, John Pike, an attorney for Kerekes, questioned Roy’s motivation in volunteering as an informant.

Police in Pennsylvania had identified Roy as a possible suspect soon after Kocis’ death, Pike said, and as of last October, the state police still considered him a “known enemy” of Kocis.

Cuadra and Kerekes first met with Roy and Lockhart at the Gay AVN Awards in Las Vegas, the gay pornography equivalent of the Academy Awards, on Jan. 11, 2007, prosecutors said.

According to Roy, Cuadra asked: “What if Bryan left the country?”

“He will only come back,” Lockhart said.

Lockhart had been drinking and did not understand the implied meaning that Cuadra wanted to kill Kocis, Roy said.

“What if Bryan went to Canada?” Cuadra asked.

Kocis was dead less than two weeks later.
---

Update 07/28/08: The Citizens' Voice has printed a correction to this story: A quote in Saturday’s edition incorrectly identified the person Joseph Kerekes was referring to. The quote should have read: “They were on the phone from San Diego with (Harlow Cuadra), like while this was, while that was happening.”

Cuadra, Kerekes Mull Similar Alibis

The Citizens' Voice reports that Attorneys for Harlow Cuadra said Wednesday the accused killer might claim he was at a Plains Township motel the night Bryan Kocis was killed in Dallas Township in January 2007 — the same potential alibi defense being considered by co-defendant Joseph Kerekes.

In Cuadra’s notice of alibi defense, filed Wednesday after the conclusion of a multi-part hearing on evidence suppression, and Kerekes’ alibi notice, filed in January, both defendants claim they were in Room 211 at the Fox Ridge Motel, about 12 miles from Kocis’ Midland Drive home.

Neither notice said if Cuadra or Kerekes would claim they were in the room together at the time of the killing, though Kerekes has indicated to Renee Martin, an acquaintance and former neighbor who has been described by prosecutors as their business associate, that he stayed at the motel while Cuadra went to visit Kocis.

The conflicting alibi accounts could bolster a defense argument, made at a previous suppression hearing, that Cuadra and Kerekes should be tried separately. A growing rift between the former lovers and business partners could jeopardize their defense if they are tried together, as prosecutors have advocated, the attorneys said.

Kerekes, 34, and Harlow Cuadra, 26, both of Virginia Beach, Va., are accused of slashing the neck of Kocis, a rival producer of gay pornographic films, to the point of near decapitation, stabbing his torso nearly 30 times and later setting fire to his home. They face the death penalty and are scheduled to stand trial together, beginning Sept. 2.

Kerekes discussed several possible alibis with Martin, including a disproved theory that he was not in Pennsylvania at the time. Kerekes mentioned the Fox Ridge Motel in a hypothetical situation he described for her during one telephone conversation while an inmate at the Virginia Beach Correctional Facility.

“Can I tell you exactly what happened or should I, should I keep my mouth shut?” Kerekes said.

Martin suggested Kerekes tell the story in a hypothetical form.

“OK, once upon a time there was a gay escort couple that, ya know, once upon a time that thought maybe working with this movie producer would be good, where as he, you know, he had access to other young stars that would enhance one of the two’s career, so they set up an appointment to meet.”

Kerekes said one of the men went to meet the producer while the other stayed at a hotel that had been rented. The hypothetical story matches up to Cuadra visiting Kocis and Kerekes staying at the Fox Ridge Inn, prosecutors said.

“When he approached the home, obviously there had been an intrusion, and the door was open, hypothetically and supposedly then, he found what was there, and he, supposedly and hypothetically, ran and came back to the older one, which was in the hotel and they were scared.”

Cuadra ordered an online background check of Kocis days before the murder, sent e-mail messages and photographs to Kocis, placed telephone calls to him on a cell phone purchased and used only to call Kocis, and rented a vehicle that was seen by witnesses in Kocis’ driveway around the time of the killing, prosecutors said.

In another telephone conversation, Martin alluded to the possibility Grant Roy, a former suspect in the killing who testified at an evidence suppression hearing Thursday, and his business partner and former lover, Sean Lockhart, had been at Kocis’ home.

Lockhart had acted in gay pornographic films produced by Kocis’ company, Cobra Video.

He and Roy had settled a lawsuit with Kocis on Jan. 18, 2007, allowing Lockhart to star in movies not involving Cobra Video, in exchange for a payment of 20 percent of the proceeds to Cobra.

Kerekes said Roy and Lockhart were not directly involved, but had spoken to Cuadra by telephone.

“They were on the phone from San Diego with (Cuadra), like while this was, while that was happening,” Kerekes told Martin.

“While the murder was happening?” Martin said.

“Yes,” Kerekes said. “(Investigators) know that Grant and Brent weren’t there.”

“They were on the phone with him while the murdering was happening?”

“Yes, that’s all knowledge, everyone knows,” Kerekes said.

Witness Bail/Bond

There seems to be several theories floating around... as to why Renee Martin is currently the only material witness for Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes' murder trial to have gone through a bond hearing. With this post, I hope to put those 'theories' to rest.

As I reported here on June 3, 2008... Renee Martin was in Pennsylvania to give a deposition (arrived in PA on Sunday... left Tuesday) and on the last day she was there, she was issued two subpoenas... one to attend the July 8-9 hearing, the other to attend the trial:



Sources tell me that the reason she was brought before PPO, was because an out-of-state-witness service was only valid in front of a judge, and that since she was already in PA, it would make the order binding. (see this post for further information on how these things usually work). Furthermore, if Renee were truly an uncooperative witness, do you really think she'd walk away with an "un-secured" bond?

While 32 other witness have also received out-of-state subpoenas, why would the DA go through the expense of flying them all up to PA, paying for their airfare, lodging, meals, etc... for something that takes usually less than 10 minutes? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply do it when they come up for whatever hearing they've been subpoenaed for? (which they could certainly fight, but in the long-run, would likely lose... and with the expense of hiring an attorney... I can't imagine any will fight it).

I've also been informed that witnesses attending the July 8-9 hearing will actually be arriving on or before July 6th... that leaves July 7th wide-open for anything that needs to be done before the judge.

DA Details Statements by Cuadra & Kerekes

According to the Citizens' Voice, accused killers Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes made a number of bumbled calculations and incriminating admissions following the January 2007 murder of Bryan Kocis in Dallas Township, prosecutors said in court documents filed Monday.

Cuadra, 26, and Kerekes, 34, both of Virginia Beach, Va., are accused of slashing Kocis’ neck and stabbing his torso nearly 30 times and later setting fire to his Midland Drive home.

According to prosecutors: Cuadra spoke in detail about the killing in a wiretapped conversation with a business associate on a San Diego beach in April 2007; Cuadra and Kerekes shifted an alibi that had put them out of the state at the time of the killing after evidence underminded their original story; and Kerekes told an associate a “hypothetical” version of the events, in which Cuadra pulled up to the Kocis home as it was already engulfed in flames.

“It was quick, he never saw it coming,” Cuadra said, according to a transcript of the wiretapped conversation on Black’s Beach in the La Jolla neighborhood of San Diego.

The prosecutors also detailed witness accounts, which put a vehicle rented by Cuadra at the Kocis home around the time the fire started; video evidence, which showed the two men purchasing weapons at a Virginia Beach pawn shop the day before the killing; and cell phone data, which indicated Cuadra and Kerekes were in Kocis’ neighborhood at the time of the killing.

Cuadra and Kerekes face the death penalty and are scheduled to stand trial together before Court of Common Pleas Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. beginning Sept. 2. A hearing on pre-trial motions is scheduled for 9 a.m. today.

In a telephone conversation recorded by prosecutors, Kerekes told business associate Renee Martin that he planned to fight his incarceration at the Virginia Beach Correctional Facility and eventual extradition to Luzerne County by claiming he was not in Pennsylvania when Kocis was murdered.

“Yea, and the problem being with that is, you gave your photo ID for a hotel some place in Pennsylvania,” Martin told Kerekes, according to a transcript filed by prosecutors.

Kerekes checked into the Fox Ridge Inn in Plains Township with Cuadra on Jan. 23, 2007, and showed a photo identification to the owner, Thakor Patel, prosecutors said. He also indicated to Patel that the vehicle they had arrived in was gray, prosecutors said.

Kocis’ neighbors told prosecutors they saw a silver Nissan Xterra in his driveway on Midland Drive, which dead ends at a cemetery. Cuadra rented a silver Xterra the previous morning from an Enterprise Rent-a-Car office in Virginia Beach, prosecutors said.

Martin suggested in the telephone call that Kerekes and Cuadra cut the fabrication and base their alibi on what actually happened.

“The truth is the best way,” she said.

“Well, that’s what we’ll have to do,” Kerekes said. “But you’ve got to explain the truth to Harlow, that we were, ya know, there.”

After they became disconnected, Kerekes called Martin back and said he wanted to confess the real story of what happened the night Kocis was killed.

“Can I tell you exactly what happened or should I, should I keep my mouth shut?” Kerekes said.

Martin suggested Kerekes tell the story in a hypothetical form.

“OK, once upon a time there was a gay escort couple that ya know, once upon a time that thought maybe working with this movie producer would be good, where as he, you know he had access to other young stars that would enhance one of the two’s career, so they set up an appointment to meet.”

Kerekes said one of the men went to meet the producer while the other stayed at a hotel that had been rented. The hypothetical story matches up to Cuadra visiting Kocis and Kerekes staying at the Fox Ridge Inn, prosecutors said.

“When he approached the home, obviously there had been an intrusion, and the door was open, hypothetically and supposedly then, he found what was there, and he, supposedly and hypothetically, ran and came back to the older one, which was in the hotel and they were scared.”

Prosecutors said that prior to the murder, Cuadra and Kerekes had complained to employees and associates of their pornography business that Cobra Video, a company owned by Kocis, had been impeding their expansion into the “twink market,” a genre of films featuring male actors who appear to be in their late teens or early 20s, with a slight physique and little or no body hair.

Cuadra and Kocis had wanted to recruit actor Sean Lockhart, who appeared under the stage name “Brent Corrigan,” but Lockhart was under contract to work only for Kocis.

Cuadra and Kerekes met with Lockhart and his business partner Grant Roy at the Gay AVN Awards in Las Vegas, the gay pornography equivalent of the Academy Awards, in early January 2007, prosecutors said.

At the time, Lockhart was engaged in a patent lawsuit over the use of the Corrigan stage name. A proposed settlement would have allowed Lockhart to star in movies not involving Cobra Video, in exchange for a payment of 20 percent of the proceeds to Cobra. Cuadra and Kerekes did not want to pay any money to Cobra, prosecutors said.

According to Roy, Cuadra asked:

“What if Bryan left the country?”

“He will only come back,” Lockhart said.

Lockhart had been drinking, Roy said, and did not understand the implied meaning that Cuadra wanted to kill Kocis.

“What if Bryan went to Canada?”

PA Trip Update

Well I finally arrived home around 4:30 PM this afternoon... traffic wasn't as bad coming back thankfully.

While the hearing certainly didn't live up to what most of us had probably hoped for (trust me, I wouldn't have gone up there had I known this was going to be the outcome)... I still don't find it to be a wasted trip. It was interesting to see 'in-person', just how things are done in Luzerne County, and what the demeanor's are of all the players.

I was actually quite impressed with Mr. Melnick, he certainly seems to know his stuff, and he was the only DA to talk during the entire hearing. Judge PPO came across as stern, but also seemed to have a sense of humor. He even had a smile on his face when Melnick made the "Plan B Express" comment.

Joseph Kerekes' attorneys didn't really give me a good or bad impression. They seemed to be able to answer the questions with relative ease, other than the one PPO asked 'if Joe would try to pin Harlow for the crime', they didn't seem to want to answer that question while Harlow's attorneys were present. Joe's attorneys really didn't spend much time talking to him, and I vividly recall one time during the Wednesday hearing were he was trying to get their attention, and they just seemed to ignore him while talking amongst themselves.

Harlow Cuadra's attorneys gave me a bad impression. While they were able to answer some questions with ease, they seemed to be stuck on more important one's that PPO asked... hence several recesses. With everything that's transpired, I'd say they are definitely not prepared for trial.

While I never spoke to Fred Kerekes, he appeared to be a nice man.

I spoke briefly with Bryan Kocis' brother-in-law, he thanked me for my blog and it's fairness.

Several witnesses were noted, and I spoke to a couple of them. I'm not going to mention who, as I don't think it's fair to name names at this point.

I stayed at the Best Western Genetti which was within easy walking distance to the courthouse... it's not a Hyatt, but it did have free high-speed Internet, and a fairly nice bar and restaurant. The room wasn't bad either.

Now that I'm back, here's a couple of things I'll be posting over the next several days:

• Commonwealth's Answer to Harlow Cuadra's Omnibus Pretial Motions.
• Harlow's letter to Nep.
• Police Interview with witness Mitch Hallford.
• Police Conversations with witness Matthew Brannon.
• Email Conversations between Harlow/Joe and David Michaels.
• Telephone Transcripts between Renee Martin and Joseph Kerekes.
• 3-way Telephone Transcripts between Renee Martin, Joseph Kerekes, and Harlow Cuadra.

Kerekes' Jailhouse Confessions (Part 3)

This is the third individual that was interviewed by Cpl. L. Hannon and other law enforcement, in regards to statements made by Joseph Kerekes while incarcerated. I'm posting this a day early because I'm working on a separate post for tomorrow's 'anniversary', and just don't want the two to conflict.

SYNOPSIS: On 07/31/07 at 1250 hours Sgt. Douglas HIGGINS and I interviewed. Robert Gary DeVaughn TOLLEY. TOLLEY was in the same cell as Joseph KEREKES while both of them were incarcerated at the Virginia Beach Correctional Facility.

DETAILS: On 07/31/07 at 1250 hours, Sgt. Douglas HIGGINS and I interviewed Robert Gary DeVaughn TOLLEY also referred to as “Joker", an inmate at Virginia Beach Correctional Facility. I explained to TOLLEY that we were there to ask him some questions and that his involvement is voluntary. TOLLEY acknowledged that this was voluntary and agreed to speak with us. TOLLEY is married and has no children. TOLLEY related that he was born and raised here in Virginia. I informed TOLLEY we were. from Pennsylvania and conducting an investigation and asked TOLLEY if he knew why we wanted to talk with him. TOLLEY related he did not know why we wanted to talk with him and the only thing he knew was a “Dude” in PA got killed. TOLLEY added that he knows Joe KEREKES as a cell mate and he talked about “some dude in PA”, TOLLEY added that at night, while sitting with William SMITH and KEREKES, KEREKES said he was in prison for killing some porn guy. KEREKES said he was a porn star and helped his partner kill some guy in Pennsylvania. TOLLEY related KEREKES said he and “the other guy” killed some guy because of competition. TOLLEY added KEREKES kept saying, “him (KEREKES) and the other guy killed the guy in Pennsylvania.” KEREKES also said he was turning States evidence against the other Dude. TOLLEY added KEREKES was always on the phone, never sent any letters out, received a lot of mail, wrote stuff down every day. KEREKES said before he got put in prison he was doing all kinds of drugs and having a good time.

I advised TOLLEY that the information provided by him was not going to gain him any considerations of any kind. TOLLEY acknowledged this. I asked TOLLEY to provide a written statement on what, he had told us.TOLLEY agreed and provided a written statement. I asked TOLLEY if he would be available to testify to what he had told us. TOLLEY related that he would be available to testify.

I asked TOLLEY if he ever heard of Harlow CUADRA, Bryan KOCIS, Barry TAYLOR or Renee MARTIN. TOLLEY added he heard KEREKES refer to Renee MARTIN as the keeper of his business records. TOLLEY added KEREKES said some Dude in Pennsylvania had money for him, unknown whom. TOLLEY added KEREKES was scared he was going to get life in prison.

Sgt. Douglas HIGGINS, Dallas Township Police Department was present during the interview.

IX. Motion for Severance

41. Denied.

42. Denied. Defendant Cuadra's defense is not substantially prejudiced by the joinder with Defendant Kerekes' case. Defendant Cuadra's defense is consistent, compatible and coordinated with Defendant Kerekes' defense. The Defendants defenses demonstrate alliance, not antagonism. Both Cuadra and Kerekes have agreed on Plan B, wherein both defendants are completely innocent. Under Plan B, Defendant Kerekes was slumbering at the Fox Ridge Inn, composing an e-mail to escort client. At 60 Midland Drive, Defendant Cuadra walked in 60 Midland Drive, Dallas, Pennsylvania; Defendant Cuadra smelled smoke and fled from the unfolding tragedy. Then Defendant Kerekes and Defendant Cuadra, apparently overcome by emotion, sped back to Virginia Beach. See Virginia Beach Prison Transcript #98, 101 which are attached hereto as Exhibits "5" and "6".

43. Denied. The Defendants, in loyal alliance, have agreed upon Plan B. Whatever Defendant Cuadra is speaking of, in terms of antagonism, is not delineated. Even if Defendant Cuadra can point to something that hints of antagonism, the fact that defendants have conflicting versions of what took place, or the extent to which they participated in it, is a reason for rather than against a joint trial because the truth may be more easily determined if all are tried together. 11 Gribble, 863 A.2d at 462.

44. Denied. The Defendant does not point out what statements cause prejudice. The Commonwealth will play or read transcripts of the following conversation attached hereto:

a. Joseph Kerekes to Renee Martin: Defendant Kerekes outlines Plan B.

b. Joseph Kerekes and Harlow Cuadra: the Defendants agree on Plan B.

c. Joseph Kerekes to Renee Martin: redacted and read to the jury in accordance with Commonwealth v. Travers. 564 Pa. 362, 768 A.2d 845, 847 (2001): Defendant Kerekes acknowledges a trip to the Wilkes-Barre Walmart with Cuadra in which lighter fluid, a knife, KY jelly and condoms are purchased the day of the homicide.

45. Denied. The Defendant has not specified what he is referring to.

46. Denied.

47. Admitted in part. The death penalty stage is qualitatively different. The Defendant does not specify, denote or delineate what the risks are he speaks of. To the extent that the Defendant suggests that the courts or the prosecution are inattentive or lax in examining the pros and cons of joinder, the Commonwealth rejects that assumption.

48. Admitted in part. There should be scrutiny for all criminal cases to ensure they are fundamentally fair. The Commonwealth, the Defendant and the public all suffer if trials are not fundamentally fair for offenses as benign as a harassment case.

49. Admitted. This has occurred with multiple defendants in a capital case.

50. Denied. Redaction as set forth in the Travers decision provides the solution. The rest of this averment does not set forth how it applies in the instant case but appears to be inapt generalizations.

51. Denied. The United States Supreme Court and Pennsylvania Supreme Court have delineated what type of statements do not offend the Confrontation Clause. The Defendant fails to point out even a single statement that he is referring to.

52. Denied. The United States Supreme Court and Pennsylvania Supreme Court have delineated what type of statements do not offend the Confrontation Clause. The Defendant fails to point out even a single statement that he is referring to assist the Court in its evaluation.

53. Denied. The Defendant cites no case for this proposition. There is no such thing as a non-statutory aggravator. The fact that defendants have conflicting versions of what took place, or the extent to which they participated in it, is a reason for rather than against a joint trial because the truth may be more easily determined if all are tried together." Gribble, 863 A.2d at 462

54. Denied. The fact that defendants have conflicting versions of what took place, or the extent to which they participated in it, is a reason for rather than against a joint trial because the truth may be more easily determined if all are tried together." Gribble, 863 A.2d at 462 55. Denied. In Commonwealth. v. Chester, 587 A.2d 1367, 526 Pa. 578 (Pa., 1991) Chester and Laird, were tried and found guilty of Murder in the First Degree with the jury imposing the penalty of death for both defendants in connection with the death of Anthony Milano. There are several cases akin to Chester i.e. joined or consolidated death penalty cases in Pennsylvania.

56. Denied. In Commonwealth. v. Chester, 587 A.2d 1367, 526 Pa. 578 (Pa., 1991)Chester and Laird, were tried and found guilty of Murder in the First Degree with the jury imposing the penalty of death for both defendants in connection with the death of Anthony Milano. There are several cases akin to Chester i.e. joined or consolidated death penalty cases in Pennsylvania.

57. Denied.

58. Denied.

WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth moves this Honorable Court to deny the Defendant's Motion to Suppress.

Statement of Facts and Procedural History

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Commonwealth filed separate 12 Count Criminal Informations against the Defendant on or about October 4, 2007, alleging the “Offense Date” for each and every Count as “1/24/2007.” The homicide, abuse of corpse, robbery and arson allegedly committed by Defendants Cuadra and Kerekes are believed by the Commonwealth to have occurred on or about January 24, 2007. The Commonwealth also alleges that Defendants Cuadra and Kerekes were also involved in conspiracies to commit these crimes as well as the commission of the additional crimes of Tampering with or Fabricating Physical Evidence and Criminal Conspiracy to commit same on January 24, 2007.

According to the Commonwealth’s evidence, the Defendants were arrested and detained on “Fugitive From Justice warrants” by members of the Virginia Beach Police Department on May 15, 2007.

On January 30, 2008, Defendant Kerekes filed his Omnibus Pretrial Motion papers, included within said Omnibus was a “Motion For Severance.” On May 16, 2008, Defendant Cuadra filed his Omnibus Pretrial Motion papers, included within said Omnibus a “Motion For Severance”. The Commonwealth filed Answers to each of the Defendants’ Omnibus Pretrial Motions and specifically answered the aforementioned Motions regarding Severance.

In the Commonwealth’s July 3, 2008 Answer to Defendant Harlow Cuadra’s Omnibus Pretrial Motion, it specifically responded to the Motion For Severance as follows:

42. Denied. Defendant Cuadra’s defense is not substantially prejudiced by the joinder with Defendant Kerekes’ case. Defendant Cuadra’s defense is consistent, compatible and coordinated with Defendant Kerekes’ defense. The Defendants defenses demonstrate alliance, not antagonism. Both Cuadra and Kerekes have agreed on Plan B, wherein both defendants are completely innocent. Under Plan B, Defendant Kerekes was slumbering at the Fox Ridge Inn, composing an e-mail to escort client. At 60 Midland Drive, Defendant Cuadra walked in 60 Midland Drive, Dallas, Pennsylvania; Defendant Cuadra smelled smoke and fled from the unfolding tragedy. Then Defendant Kerekes and Defendant Cuadra, apparently overcome by emotion, sped back to Virginia Beach. See Virginia Beach Prison Transcript #98, 101 which are attached here to as: Exhibits “5” and “6”. (See Commonwealth’s Answer to Defendant Harlow Cuadra’s Omnibus Pretrial Motion filed July 3, 2008, Page 13)

The Commonwealth’s Answer also included the following:

The Commonwealth will play or read transcripts of the following conversation attached hereto:

a. Joseph Kerekes to Renee Martin: Defendant Kerekes outlines Plan B.

b. Joseph Kerekes and Harlow Cuadra: the Defendants agree on Plan B.

c. Joseph Kerekes to Renee Martin: redacted and read to the jury in accordance with Commonwealth v. Travers, 564 Pa. 362, 768 A.2d 845, 847 (2001): Defendant Kerekes acknowledges a trip to the Wilkes-Barre Walmart with cuadra in which lighter fluid, a knife, KY jelly and condoms are purchased the day of the homicide. (See Numbered Paragraph 44. of Commonwealth’s Answer to Defendant Harlow Cuadra’s Omnibus Pretrial Motion filed July 3, 2008, Page 14)

On January 30, 2008, Defendant Kerekes filed a Notice of Possible Alibi Defense which stated the following:

... the Defendant [Kerekes] may present a defense of alibi at trial. If he presents such a defense, the claim will be that at the time of the alleged offense the Defendant [Kerekes] was at the Fox Ridge Hotel, Room 211, Plains Township, Pennsylvania. (See Notice of Possible Alibi Defense filed by Defendant Kerekes on January 30, 2008)

On July 30, 2008, Defendant Cuadra filed a Notice of Possible Alibi Defense which stated the following:

the Defendant [Cuadra] may present a defense of alibi at trial. If Defendant Cuadra presents such a defense, the claim will be that at the time of th alleged offense, the Defendant [Cuadra] was at the Fox Ridge Hotel, Room 211, Plains Township, PA. (See Notice of Possible Alibi Defense filed by Defendant Cuadra an July 30, 2008)

Also on July 30, 2008, at the continuation of the Suppression / Omnibus Motions hearing, the undersigned counsel for Defendant Cuadra, Michael B. Senape, Esquire, advised the Court, the Commonwealth and Defendant Kerekes and his legal counsel of Defendant Cuadra’s Notice of Possible Alibi Defense and served a copy of said Notice on the Court, the Commonwealth and Defendant Kerekes’ legel counsel.

Immediately thereafter the undersigned counsel presented legal argument on behalf of both Defentants supporting a joint request for Severance based upon the conficting Notice of Possible Alibi Defense filings, antagonistic defenses and the case of Commonwealth v. Brown, 592 Pa. 376, 925 A.2d 147 at 162 (2007).

During this argument the Court engaged the undersigned counsel and counsel for the Commonwealth in a discussion of the legal and factual implications and/or distinctions between the case sub judicie and the cases of Commonwealth v. Markman, 591 Pa. 249, 916 A.2d 586 (2007) and Commonwealth v. Cull, 418 Pa.Super. 23, 613 A.2d 12 (Pa.Super. 1992). Specifically, the Court pointed out the fact that in the Markman case the statements were made by a co-defendant to law enforcement officials and in Cull the statements were made by a co-defendant to a non-law enforcement person / lay witness. The Court then directed the undersigned to provide, if possible, the Court and the Commonwealth with legal authority to further support the Defendants’ requests for Severance based upon these legal principals.

Cuadra Trial... Day 7 Overview

According to the Citizens' Voice... a panicked Harlow Cuadra needed someone to support an alibi that he wasn’t in Pennsylvania on Jan. 24, 2007, the night Bryan Kocis was killed at his Dallas Township home, a friend and former client said Wednesday.

“A bad alibi is better than no alibi,” Cuadra told him, Howard Mitchell Halford testified during the seventh day of testimony in Cuadra’s capital homicide trial.

Three of prosecution’s 13 witnesses who testified Wednesday described potential alibis Cuadra had pursued leading up to his trial. Cuadra, 27, is accused of killing Kocis, 44, to eliminate him as a potential rival of the gay pornography business he co-owned with Joseph Kerekes. Kerekes, 35, pleaded guilty in December to second-degree homicide and is serving a life sentence.

Halford met Cuadra through the male escort service Cuadra co-owned with Kerekes in Virginia Beach, Va. Halford said he loved Cuadra. He often worried about him and gave Cuadra a key to his home, he said, so Cuadra could “have an option” if there was ever a problem with Kerekes. Since Cuadra’s arrest, Halford said he has donated more than $70,000 to Cuadra for his legal fund and other expenses.

But, Halford said, he never lied to police.

“You were not with him on Jan. 24?” Assistant District Attorney Michael Melnick asked.

“No,” Halford said.

Halford read from letters Cuadra sent him, asking Halford to support an alibi. He sighed. He paused after being asked questions by Melnick and Cuadra’s attorney Joseph D’Andrea. Halford pointed to Cuadra when asked to identify him, but otherwise tried to avoid eye contact with Cuadra as he testified. Cuadra took notes during the testimony.

Throughout the trial Cuadra’s attorneys, D’Andrea and Paul Walker, have tried to paint Cuadra as submissive to Kerekes. Halford agreed, saying Cuadra was like a “battered spouse.” During cross-examination, Halford described a story of Kerekes visiting Halford’s apartment and taking Cuadra away.

“And, Harlow, like a little puppy, succumbed to his master, Joe?” D’Andrea asked.

“Totally,” Halford said.

Nep Maliki also loved Cuadra. Like Halford, Maliki testified he met the 27-year-old through his escort business. Cuadra sent Maliki several letters from prison asking Maliki to remember facts about an alibi that was made up, Maliki said. He too read from the letters Cuadra had sent, but Maliki said he never lied to police or followed through with the proposed alibi plan. Maliki, who works two fast food restaurant jobs in Virginia Beach, testified he donated $50 to Cuadra’s legal defense fund.

Renee Martin, a neighbor of Cuadra and Kerekes at the time of their arrest, testified she talked to Kerekes hundreds or thousands of times, while the two men were jailed in Virginia Beach related to the Kocis killing. In those conversations, Martin said, Cuadra and Kerekes established a “Plan B” alibi, in which Kerekes would say he was at a local motel at the time of Kocis’ death and Cuadra arrived to see Kocis’ Midland Drive home on fire.

Jurors listened to two of the taped conversations, which lasted less than 10 minutes each.

Like his former co-defendant and partner, Kerekes, Cuadra filed an alibi defense after being arrested in May 2007. Since then, prosecutors have filed several documents trying to tear through proposed alibi defenses of Cuadra and Kerekes.

The prosecution’s other witnesses Wednesday verified various records, from electronic files related to Cuadra’s MySpace Web page, phone logs and a purchase of lighter fluid and other goods made at Wal-Mart in Wilkes-Barre Township the day Kocis was killed. Because the items were paid for in cash, the witness couldn’t verify who had bought the items.
---

Meanwhile, over at the Times Leader... mouths opened and eyes widened among a few jurors on Wednesday when a customer of Harlow Cuadra’s male escort business in Virginia testified he gave Cuadra $70,000 to help pay for his defense on criminal homicide charges.

Howard Mitchell Hallford, 48, told the Luzerne County jury he gave the money to Cuadra, 27, because he loves him. Hallford, of Atlanta, Ga., further testified he gave Cuadra keys to his then-Virginia Beach, Va., residence in early 2007 as an “option” when Cuadra was a suspect in the murder of Bryan Kocis in Dallas Township in January 2007.

Cuadra and his business partner in the escort business and the production of gay pornographic movies, Joseph Kerekes, were arrested on May 15, 2007, in the slaying of Kocis, 44, inside Kocis’ Midland Drive home on Jan. 24, 2007. Prosecutors claim Kocis was killed because Cuadra and Kerekes considered him their main rival in the adult film production industry, and wanted to work with adult film actor Sean Lockhart, who was a contract actor for Kocis’ company, Cobra Video.

Kerekes pleaded guilty in December to second-degree murder and is serving life in prison. Cuadra could face the death penalty if convicted of first-degree homicide.

Hallford was one of three escort customers who testified Wednesday, the seventh day of Cuadra’s capital murder trial before Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr.

Hallford’s testimony appeared to affect the jury, several of whom readjusted themselves in their seats, leaned forward and wrote what he was saying in their notebooks.

Hallford said Cuadra told him to tell investigators that they were together the night Kocis was killed.

“Basically, he didn’t have an alibi for that night,” Hallford said.

Hallford told the jury he saw Cuadra once in late January 2007 and gave him $70,000 because he loves him. “That was the reason for the money,” Hallford said, apparently surprising the jury.

Nep Maliki, a fast-food restaurant employee in Virginia Beach, said he was an escort customer of Cuadra’s and he also felt he was in love with him. He donated $50 to Cuadra’s defense, Maliki said.

Assistant district attorneys Michael Melnick, Shannon Crake and Allyson Kacmarski showed the jury a letter Cuadra allegedly wrote to Maliki on June 13, 2007.

In the letter that Cuadra began, “For your eyes only,” he gave explicit instructions to Maliki to remember certain events in an attempt to have Maliki as an alibi witness.

“I remember that you came over on January 24th (2007) around 7:30 a.m., maybe it was 8 a.m. You had on black jeans and a black heavy sweater. Black slip-on shoes,” Cuadra wrote.

Cuadra also coached Maliki to tell investigators that a silver Nissan XTerra was parked in front of his Virginia Beach home.

Prosecutors allege Cuadra leased a silver Nissan XTerra that he used to drive to Kocis’ home from Virginia Beach.

Maliki said he held onto the letter for six months, carrying it in his pocket.

After Cuadra was charged with Kocis’ murder, prosecutors claim Cuadra also sought money from escort customer Joseph Ryan, a computer consultant in Norfolk, Va. Unlike Hallford and Maliki, Ryan casually told the jury that he gave Cuadra more than $7,000.

Upon questioning by Cuadra’s lawyers, Joseph D’Andrea and Paul Walker, Ryan said Kerekes was the more dominant person in the relationship, adding that Kerekes gave Cuadra a black eye.

It has been part of Cuadra’s defense by his lawyers since testimony began eight days ago to shift blame onto Kerekes.

Prosecutors continued on Wednesday to present witnesses testifying about the motive that led to Kocis’ murder.

Adam Greibier said he worked for Cuadra and Kerekes as an escort and appeared in one of their adult films titled, “Young Bucks In Heat II.” Greibier described their relationship as a “joint power,” and they wanted Lockhart for their adult film business.

“It would definitely bring their company to a new level,” Greibier said, if Cuadra and Kerekes produced movies with Lockhart. “It was general knowledge that Cobra Video was the leading seller of gay adult films.”

Prosecutors played to the jury two out of the thousands of jailhouse phone calls between Cuadra, Kerekes and their friend Renee Martin.

Martin, who lived near the two men in Virginia Beach, said she paid for the phone calls in which prosecutors said Cuadra and Kerekes talked about making up an alibi plan that they called Plan B.

“Don’t make my hole too deep to crawl out of,” Cuadra was heard saying to Kerekes. “I know (investigators) don’t believe that I opened the door and saw the body. I know they don’t believe that.”

Kerekes was heard saying, “I think the detectives are hard up on evidence.”

DA's Supplemental Brief in Response to Motions for Severance

COMMONWEALTH’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS CUADRA’S AND KEREKES’ JOINT BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SEVERANCE

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Joseph Kerekes duly filed a Notice of Alibi defense indicating that he was at the Fox Ridge Inn the evening of January 24, 2007. Mr. Kerekes had signed in the hotel the evening before, noting that there would be two occupants.

Co-Defendant Harlow Cuadra flIed an untimely Notice of Alibi defense stating be was at the Fox Ridge Inn on January 24, 2007.

In conclusory fashion, Defense Counsel broadly asserts the defenses are antagonistic without reference to any facts.

In Commonwealth. v. Jones 610 A.2d 93 530 Pa 591 (Pa., 1992), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court wrote, “There is nothing inherently antagonistic about alibi defenses being used by multiple defendants.”

ISSUES

1. Whether or not the Defendants have shown actual prejudice from consolidated cases so as to warrant severance?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: NO.

2. Whether or not the Virginia Beach prison intercepts are admissible as adoptive admissions where the Defendant Cuadra, responding to Defendant Kerekes, states:

a. JOSEPH KEREKES: Listen we have to go to Plan B, we went there.
HARLOW CUADRA: Alright, airight. Hey Joe, don’t don’t say anything over the phone, I already need to, I already know.

b. JOSEPH KEREKES: Harlow, it’s pretty, it’s pretty much what we already know, remember what Plan B was, right?
HARLOW CUADRA: Yea, yea.
JOSEPH KEREKES: Okay, and umm...
HARLOW CUADRA: Oh boy.
JOSEPH KEREKES: Because we can’t get any...we have to tell, ya know what I mean?
HARLOW CUADRA: Yea, yea.
JOSEPH KEREKES: Are you good with that?
HARLOW CUADRA: Yea, I’m good, I’m good.

c. JOSEPH KEREKES: Do you remember though what is was, you, you had an appointment, I mean..
HARLOW CUADRA: I know, I know, I know...
JOSEPH KEREKES: Egh, Egh, Egh, Egh.
HARLOW CUADRA: I, I, I know, I know Joe.
JOSEPH KEREKES: And I wasn’t there.
HARLOW CUADRA: Everything, everything’s in my head, just be very calm, alright?

d. JOSEPH KEREKES: Hey Harlow, when I’m off the phone here she’s gonna explain to you the hypothetical okay?
HARLOW CUADRA: Okay.

e. JOSEPH KEREKES: So Harlow pretty much knows the hypothetical story, right?
HARLOW CUADRA: Yea, yea.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: YES.

ARGUMENT AND LAW

A. The Defendants’ Alibi Defenses Do Not Warrant Severance In Commonwealth. v. Jones 610 A.2d 931, 530 Pa 591 (Pa., 1992), a capital case with thee defendants, the Defendant Jones claimed a severance was warranted because both he and his co defendant presented alibi defenses and it was possible that appellant’s defense might be prejudiced by conflicts with testimony presented by the co-defendants. The Supreme Court wrote:

“Appellant’s first contention is that a motion to sever his trial from that of his codefendants was erroneously denied. The record is silent as to the circumstances surrounding the denial of appellant’s motion for severance. The motion was not denied by the trial court, but rather by another judge. Appellant has not cited anything in the record indicating the grounds on which the motion rested. The trial court, in preparing its opinion for purposes of this appeal, expressed uncertainty as to the grounds asserted for severance. It speculated that appellant presented his motion to a calendar control judge in proceedings not transcribed, but acknowledged that appellant may have at some time during trial presented a renewed oral motion for severance.”

“Nevertheless, appellant claims that severance would have spared him prejudice from testimony given by certain alibi witnesses who appeared on behalf of codefendant Givens. Numerous alibi witnesses testified that Givens was not in the courtyard at the time of the shootings. Three of these testified further, however, that they saw appellant and Robertson commit the shootings. Appellant claims therefore that his own defense, which was one of alibi, was inherently contradictory with Givens’ defense. While the record provides no basis to determine the grounds actually asserted for severance, we believe that if, as appellant infers, the motion for severance was based on the possibility that appellant’s defense might be prejudiced by conflicts with testimony presented by the codefendants, the motion was properly denied.” Id.

“It is well established that a motion for severance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and that its decision will not be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Chester 526 Pa. 578, 589-90, 587 A.2d 1367, 1372-73 (1991), cert. denied, U.S. 112 S.Ct. 152, 442, 116 L.Ed.2d 442 (1991). Where, as was the case here, defendants have been charged with conspiracy, joint rather than separate trials are to be preferred. Id. Commonwealth v. Jackson 451 Pa. 462, 464, 303 A.2d 924, 925 (1973) (joint trials are advisable where multiple defendants are charged with participation in the same criminal acts and much of the same evidence is necessary or applicable to all of the defendants). severance may nevertheless be proper where a defendant can show that he will be prejudiced by a joint trial. Commonwealth v. Chester 526 Pa. at 590, 587 A.2d at 1372-73.” Id.

“Although the possibility of conflicting defenses is a factor to be considered in deciding whether to grant severance, it is clear that more than a bare assertion of conflict is required. Id. at 590, 587 A.2d at 1373. As stated Commonwealth v. Chester 526 Pa. at 590, 587 A.2d at 1373, “ mere fact that there is hostility between defendants, or that one may try to save himself at the ex of another, is in itself not sufficient grounds to require separate trials. Further, “defenses become antagonistic only when the jury, in order to believe the essence of testimony offered on behalf of one defendant, must necessarily disbelieve the testimony of his co defendant.” Id.

“Applying these principles to the present case, it is evident that the essence of Givens’ defense was his own non-participation in the crime rather than the involvement of appellant and Robertson. Givens presented many witnesses in support of his defense of alibi, and, of these, only three testified that appellant was involved in the crime. Givens testified in support of his own alibi defense, and he did not, in any way, implicate appellant. Thus, the core of Givens’ defense was one of alibi, as was the core of appellant’s defense. There is nothing inherently antagonistic about alibi defnses being used by multiple defendants”. Id.

“While portions of the testimony provided by a few of Givens’ alibi witnesses indeed proved to be at odds with appellant’s defense that he was not at the scene of the crime, the record does not reveal whether such a conflict was made known to the court when the motion for severance was offered. Even assuming that the conflict was made known, the testimony would not have so affected appellant’s defense as to render the decision not to sever the trials a manifest abuse of discretion.”

“If the severance motion had been granted the Commonwealth would likely have been able, if it desired, to introduce testimony against appellant from the same three witnesses in a separate trial. Hence, granting the motion to sever would not have insulated appellant from the testimony in question.” Id.

“Further, the testimony was of very doubtful significance, since the Commonwealth produced six or more of its own witnesses who testified that they saw appellant commit the shootings. Quite obviously, too, Givens’ alibi witnesses were not believed by the jury. If they had been believed, Givens would not have been found guilty. It is most unlikely, therefore, that their testimony played any role in appellant’s conviction.” Id.

“Thus, the three defendants were charged with conspiracy, making a joint trial advisable. Much of the evidence pertained to all three defendants, rather than to just one. The testimony given by a few of Givens’ alibi witnesses, even if the adverse nature of it had been foreseen at the time the motion for severance was made, was not such as would have necessitated that the defendants be tried separately. Further, the trial was a very lengthy one, consuming more than two months. It was characterized by the trial court as one of the most time-consuming homicide trials ever conducted in Philadelphia. A record in excess of seven thousand pages was produced. To have conducted separate trials for the codefendants in this case would have placed a heavy burden upon the judicial system as well as upon the public. Based upon these considerations, the trial court committed no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for severance.” Id.

In Clark v. O’Dea 257 F.3d 498 (6th Cir. 2001), Clark argued that he was improperly joined for trial with co-defendant Hardin. He alleges that standing trial with Hardin substantially prejudiced him, because most of the evidence of satanism related only to Hardin and not to him. Specifically, the prosecution elicited testimony about a sketch book of sacrilegious drawings, a handwritten book of spells, and a satanic poem. These items, however, were all possessions of Hardin, not Clark Similarly, Clark argues that testimony about the threat that Hardin made to Warford related only to Hardin, and not to himself.

The Clark court wrote: “This court has held, in a Sixth Amendment habeas challenge, that a defendant must show both (1) an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court and (2) compelling and specific prejudice in order to successfully challenge the joinder of his trial with that of a codefendant. Jenkins v. Bordenkircher 611 F.2d 162, 168 (6th Cir. 1979). Furthermore, we have found no compelling and specific prejudice where a codefendant’s testimony did not expressly implicate the defendant. United States v. Sherlin 67 F.3d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1995) (holding that, in a federal prosecution, the admission of a confession by Sherlin’s codefendant did not violate Sherlin’s confrontation rights where his name was redacted from the codefendant’s confession and the confession did not expressly implicate Sherlin).”

“No compelling and specific prejudice to Clark’s case has been shown here. Clark and Hardin do not even present mutually antagonistic defenses. Instead, both defendants presented essentially the same alibi defense to the jury - that they were with each other at another location on the evening of the murder. At most, testimony about Hardin’s satanism and threats towards Warford only implicate Clark by association, not by direct reference But the fact that there “is a substantial difference in the amount of evidence adduced against each defendant is not grounds to overturn a denial of severance unless there is a substantial risk that the jury could not compartmentalize or distinguish between the evidence against each defendant.” 14. citing United States v. Lloyd 10 F.3d 1197, 1215 (6th Cir. 1993).

The court went on to write, “In the present case, a jury could easily separate the testimony against Hardin from the testimony against Clark, because the testimony about Hardin’s threats and satanic paraphernalia was not particularly complex. See 14. at 1216 (upholding the joint trial of several defendants in a prosecution for drug trafficking because “this case, while lengthy, was not a case of such complexity that the jury could not compartmentalize the evidence”). Indeed, the state court had ample reasons to try Clark and Hardin together, because they both were charged with committing the same crime. Buchanan v. Kentucky 483 U.S. 402, 418 (1987) (recognizing that the state has an interest in proceeding with joint trials where “all of the crimes charged against the joined defendants arise out of one chain of events, where there is a single victim, and where, in fact, the defendants are indicted on several of the same counts”).”

“Nor has Clark demonstrated that the Kentucky Supreme Court, in allowing Clark and Hardin to be jointly tried, based its decision on “an unreasonable application of... clearly established Federal law” as required for habeas relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). In a prior case, the Kentucky Supreme Court specifically declared that the mere introduction of evidence that is competent as to one defendant and incompetent as to the other is not in and of itself grounds to grant a severance... [O]rdinarily there must be some additional factor, such as that the defendants have antagonistic defenses, or that the evidence as to one defendant tends directly to incriminate the other, e.g., one defendant's admissions directly implicate the other.” Id. citing Compton v. Commonwealth 602 S.W.2d 150, 152-23 (Ky. 1980).

“Here, Clark presented no additional factors. The evidence against Hardin -- his satanic paraphernalia and threats against Warford -- did not directly implicate Clark in Hardin’s actions. Any implication of Clark comes indirectly through Clark’s association with Hardin. Skinner v. Commonwealth 864 S.W.2d 290 (Ky. 1993) (holding that the defendant failed to establish that he should have been tried separately from his codefendants, despite his contention that he was prejudiced by the introduction of evidence about his codefendants’ misdeeds). Because the decision of the Kentucky Supreme Court in Clark’s appeal falls within the realm of plausible and credible results, and is not unreasonable in its analysis of law or fact, we reject Clark’s habeas challenge to the joinder of his trial with that of Hardin.”

In this case, Cuadra’s and Kerekes’ alibi defenses are consistent. Neither defendant is pointing the finger at the other, Neither defendant is saying the other committed any crime whatsoever. The alibi defenses are consistent, compatible, congruent, and commensurate with each other. In fact, Defendant Kerekes, the evening before the homicide, even indicated that TWO people would be in the room on the Fox Ridge Inn registration slip.

B. The Virginia Beach Prison Intercepts are Admissible as Adoptive Admissions

To clarify for Defense Counsel, the Virginia Beach prison tapes are offered as adoptive admissions. The adoptive admission is a separate concept from the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule.

The twenty-fifth exception listed within Rule 803 is designated, “Admisison by Party-Opponent,” and it encompasses both of the exceptions urged by the Commonwealth, is as follows:

“(25) Admission by Party-Opponent
The statement is offered against a party and is... (B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth,...” Furthermore, a person is considered to have adopted the conspiracy and can be held liable for the actions of others involved in the conspiracy. “Once there is evidence of the presence of a conspiracy, conspirators are liable for acts of co-conspirators committed in furtherance of this conspiracy.” Commonwealth v. Lambert 795 A.2d 1010 (Super.2002), appeal denied 805 A 521. “Once the trier of fact finds that there was an agreement and the defendant intentionally entered into the agreement, that defendant may be liable under conspiracy theory, for the overt acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy regardless of which co-conspirator committed the act.” Commonwealth v. Murphy 844 A 1228 (Super.2004).

Kerekes outlines Plan B to Renee Martin. Cuadra is not a participant to that conversation. See conversation #98 of “Transcripts of Intercepted Telephone Calls at the Virginia Beach Correctional Facility” (filed by the Commonwealth as a bound exhibit on July 7, 2008). (Note: The Commonwealth intends to redact the following phrases from that conversation on page 23:

JOSEPH KEREKES: Well, well why isn’t Harlow calling is he with Brice now?
RENEE MARTIN: Yea, yea, he’s with Brice now.
JOSEPH KEREKES: Well how do you know that?
RENEE MARTIN: Umm, because I talked to Jim Brice and he said he was going in to see Harlow, he’d call me back.)

The Commonwealth also intends to redact intercepted call #99 (also in the bound filing), an intercepted conversation between Joseph Kerekes and Renee Martin, as follows:

At page 37, Joseph Kerekes states, “... ya know and even the day of the supposed meeting when I thought that he would do business with this man, I said Harlow, do you really think we need to do this business with man, we have our own company, do we need to do this business with this man, anyways, this is all stuff Harlow will verify I sure, if it ever has to be.” The Commonwealth would seek to delete the italicized portion of Defendant Kerekes’ statement for trial (“I said Harlow” to the end of the statement would be deleted).

At page 38 of the same conversation, Defendant Kerekes states, “Umm, a very small bottle of liquid, that you might use at a picnic. Yes, you know... and umm, I said Harlow.” The Commonwealth would seek to delete the “I said Harlow” portion of the statement for trial. By removing those two references, that particular conversation would not identify Harlow, and the Commonwealth submits the conversation should be admissible at a joint trial.

Thereafter, in conversation #101 at pages 43-45: #101-103 at page 49; and #104 (all contained in the Commonwealth’s bound filing), Cuadra, responding to Kerekes, adopts Plan B as outlined above on page 2. The intercepted conversations from the Virginia Beach prison outlined above, and within the above-referenced Commonwealth filing, are adoptive admissions. Both Defendants are adopting ‘Plan B’ as a common scheme or design. The conversations are also evidence of the Defendants adopting the conspiracy. The Commonwealth submits that the statements are admissible against both parties and their use is not grounds for severance.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

JACQUELINE MUSTO CARROLL
DISTRICT ATTORNEY

MICHAEL MELNICK
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY

ALLYSON KACMARSKI
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY

SHANNON CRAKE
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY